I don't think you can compare God to the lottery. The probability of God's existence is pretty irrelevant (and I'd love to know how you can calculate it as well) if he exists.
I can compare god to whatever is most comparable and on the basis of evidence (or rather lack of) the god hypothesis comes down to probability and I'm afraid the odds do indeed make winning the lottery look a dead-cert. That is my point with the 'infinity to one' odds, it is as likely as the sun disappearing tomorrow at 12:30 and 29.631 seconds precisly, only of course you and I know the odds are even bigger than this. The odds are bigger than you can imagine, hence infinity.
The bible teaches we are his prized creation, but not his only creation. Why do you think our existence means he should make the seas inhabitable to dolphins? Why do we need to be able to live everywhere? What's wrong with where we are?
Because dolphins do not understand the concept of god, and even if they did, would he still give them 3/4 of the planet? In that case you are welcome to put your faith in a god that treats dolphins with higher regard than yourself. There may be nothing wrong with where
we (you and I ) are, but incase you forgot there are people that live in places on this planet that can barely sustain a field let along a thriving population, or are bombarded with natural disasters. I find that disturbing, whereas you clearly don't.
Well it's easy enough to say that the stars are there because they look pretty to us. That obviously doesn't explain the ones we can't see. However, if there weren't as many stars then the expansion of the universe would be faster and we wouldn't be able to see as many.
Have you any proof that there are a multitude of universes? One of the main reasons to believe in the multiverse it that the chances of the universe being so finely tuned for life are so small that there must be many universes otherwise God has to exist.
I find it mildly amusing that
I am asked for proof on the existance of the multiverse, from someone who clearly thinks a supernatural character from a bronze age story book created everything and holds the keys to paradise.
However hard it may be to envisige M-theory, it is an order of magnitude more convincing than that which I mentioned above. The Earth used to be flat until we discovered it isn't. The Sun used to rotate around the Earth until we disovered it doesn't. The Universe used to be considered unique - but it might not be. It's a pity you can't apply that process to your own understanding of the universe.
So God doesn't exist because numerous gods exist? Sorry, could you run that one past me again?
Oh yeah, you don't grasp the fact that other faiths have
other gods do you. Let me make this simple - there are countless other gods, which one is the 'intelligent designer'? So intelligent that he needed help? And to say 'there is only one god' is old and tired, try a proper answer.
God is not the filler of gaps in our scientific knowledge. God is the creator of all scientific knowledge.
I'll grant that we are obtaining knowledge but it seems the more we know the more we know we don't know. Do you really think we'll someday know everything?
I had to read that bit over again, just to grasp what you said. "God is the creator of all scientific knowledge", what kind of 'get-out-clause' is that? Seriously, that is an insult. God and his followers are trying their utmost to curb science not 'create' it. Like it or not science is corroding god and god does indeed reside in the gaps left by science.
Morals would indeed come from God. (see Jesus' thoughts on the stoning of adulterers). Just because we write our own morals doesn't mean the right morals don't come from God. It could mean we're not obeying him.
Jesus wasn't a stereotypical 'hero' in the eyes of the people at the time. He wasn't what they were expecting, or wanting, at all.
"If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death" (Lev.20:10, Ezk.16:40, Jn.8:3)
That's your bible right there, and you call it moral? And don't start saying that The Old Testament doesn't matter because in Jesus' eyes it clearly does, not only that but Jesus is not exactly a nice guy himself:
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has
"come not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:17
Jesus
was a stereotypical hero. He and his story where created long after his alledged time on Earth. Just long enough so people couldn't trace him. When the story spread he was seen as a hero, in the same vain as previous heroes before.
Your next point doesn't really make sense (and definitely doesn't disprove God), I can only suggest you look deeper into Christian theology.
Free will, etc. blah di blah. The question is ancient and I doubt I can add anything new to anwering it. Some people still see it as a theological problem, otherwise don't. I am of the latter.
You may well side step it but although the question is ancient it is not as old as the subject. The idea that god created humans, allowed them to sin, punished them and all future humans, changed his mind and sent down himself to be killed so that the sins
he put on humanity could be redeemed by
himself. If you believe that then fine, I don't and I find it quite obvious that an all knowing, all powerful, all loving god would get himself into such a farce.
As reasons for believing they are fine. As disproofs of God they are not conclusive.
Eh? Reasons
for believing, don't kid yourself. That'll take some serious wordplay and thinking outside the box, but I wouldn't bet against you doing that.
Look at Mill's Methods which, while not completely mathematical in scope, deals with matters of probability to form valid forms of inductive reasoning to shed light on issues of causation. This is a matter in which a philosophical argument can be expressed in terms of mathematical probability. Mind you, it's irrelevant when it comes to issues of God, since it deals with empirical matters.
